Insights

Intuit laid off 1,800 this summer and plans to rehire about as many.

Set aside the AI shift as part of the reason for the moment …

“More than 1,000 of the people being let go were not meeting performance expectations.”

Why were the non-performers only NOW let go?

It’s somewhat hard to believe that more than a 1,000 people – 6% or more of the workforce – suddenly became “non-performing” …

The problem will likely repeat in the future unless leaders/managers become “performing.”

Clearing out non-performers as part of a bigger layoff or focus shift is easy.

Leading and managing for high performance day-to-day is harder.

Not doing it is leadership and management failure, not worker failure … and those failing should be let go first before their employees.

 

There are continuing news stories about fake job postings, with one article estimating close to half of job postings are fake …

One word description for this: lying.

One connection on LinkedIn noted a specific example he and colleagues have been following for over 3 years: “A well known company has the same job opening (the same position title, duties and responsibilities) every quarter for the last three or four years without ever filling the position.”

Wonder how many of those people and organizations include “integrity” or something like it in their values?

Company values should be reflected in all behavior … including hiring.

You don’t have to use AI chatbots “out of the box” on general information.

Here’s an example of a free AI chatbot trained on a specific body of work: https://evo2.org/gpt/

Took Perry Marshall and team less than an hour to set up and deploy.

Also smart from a marketing perspective in that captures email …

There are two basic options in every organization or organizational sub-unit:

1. Keep things the same.
2. Change things.

The leader of that unit is responsible for either.

Almost all the time, it’s number two in some form … and usually improvements of some sort.

Strategic plans, for example, are almost always change plans. Whoever drafts and/or approves the strategic plan is planning change.

This trickles down to everyone else’s objectives for the _____ (year, quarter, whatever) … some sort of change.

There may be one or more “change management” roles assigned.

It doesn’t change the fundamental responsibility.

Therefore, almost all of the time, the real “change management” role begins with the leader.

And therefore, one of the core leadership functions is change management.

❓ Do your leadership position descriptions include responsibility for change management?

❓ Does your leadership development include change management?

Are your managers failing? Burned out?

Are you?

A recent HBR article says it’s happening … and in more places than not.

How can:

❓ You counteract this?

❓ Restore management success?

❓ Keep talented people from leaving?

You are invited to a free workshop to start answering these questions.

 

You’ll dive into:

1.       How this affects YOUR leadership and management success … or failure.

2.       The number one reason managers fail … and it’s not what most expect.

3.       The HBR article recommendations … and how to filter for your situation.

 

This is not one of those typical sessions where:

❌ Someone drones on for the entire time, with maybe some Q&A.

❌ You wait for the replay so you can play the recording at high speed to “speed listen” … hopefully getting some value out of it … if you even listen at all.

❌ Participants are largely passive and need to do work later to get any results at all.

 

Expect an uncommon webinar … a workshop that:

✅ Assumes you are capable – you can do some work yourself.

✅ Assigns a bit of prework to maximize your time.

✅ Provides exercises during the workshop to begin applying to your specific needs.

✅ Connects the dots to your overall leadership style and beliefs so results fit YOU.

 

Interested?

Use the contact form (click here) or send me a email, message on LinkedIn, or whatever (preferably not a carrier pigeon as they make messes 😉 ) …

10X productivity – myth or reality?

I just saw a post citing a McKinsey 2017 study indicating that top talent are more productive.

High performers across work types are five times (5X) more productive than average ones.

The performance gap is even more pronounced in roles that are more complex. In software work, for example, the number used is usually nine to ten times more productive (10X +/-) and has been around in various forms for decades.

Some questions for you:

1. Have you found this 5-10X difference to be true?
2. If you believe the 5-10X exists, how does this affect your hiring, retention, compensation, etc?
3. If you believe the 5-10X exists and you compete for those performers, how do you tell they are 5-10X during hiring?

Like to have a confidential sounding board to discuss this? Contact us …